I believe that every state should have constitutional carry. I think that of states have cpl laws that it shouldnt cost anything or very little (like 5 or ten dollars). it is unfair to charge someone for a constitutionally guaranteed right. If you have a poor man that cant afford the $105 that you must pay the state here in Michigan, should he be denied the right to self defense?

Also, how do anti-gun groups get off saying that the 2A doesnt apply to state and local governments. If you do that with one amendment then you have to do it with all of them. For instance, what if an anti-gun group had a demonstration in a very pro-gun state like Arizona. It was peaceful and they were handing out literature. Exercising their first amendment right to free speech. All of a sudden, the police come and break up the demonstration and arrest all of the group and charge them with a crime, that if convicted, would make them a felon.

The people arrested say they were exercising their 1A rights. They are told that the 1A applies only to the federal government and state and local governments are not obligated to recognize it. Imagine the outcry!!!

Anyway thats the end of my little rant.

Last Crow

06-07-2010 04:33 AM

Most on this site will agree with you. My thought is that every gun law on the books, federal and state, are unconstitutional. PA is not as bad as Michigan. The permit is only around $15 and it is good for five years.
Article 1 section 21 of the PA Constitution Right to bear arms. “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” I have a book 8X10 124 pages long, PA laws relating to firearms. That is a lot of questing.

doctherock

06-07-2010 05:48 AM

Good point there clip. Here's my problem here in the Northwest. I live in Oregon and Washington State is 4 miles away. I have to have a CCP for both states because they don't reciprocate. Although all the states around us will accept Oregon and Washington permits. Politicians are crooks and cowards who recive their bread and butter through others pain and suffering.

danf_fl

06-07-2010 01:39 PM

I knew there was a reason that I did not return to Wisconsin when I retired from the USAF.

c3shooter

06-07-2010 02:00 PM

As long as we are ranting (little good that it will do) since the 2nd Amendment refers to a militia, then the arm that I have a right to bear should be the arm of the militia. That means an M16. So.... what do you MEAN I cannot have a full auto M16, and no more can be registered? As long as this is a contitutional right, why am I not issued an M16 when I become an adult citizen? Of course, the arm is useless without ammo, so where are my ammo stamps? That's right- I want goverment ammo- and since it DOES say "well regulated" how about a range where I can go shoot without paying for membership? And let's not forget targets, cleaning gear, optics.......

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Pat-inCO

06-07-2010 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clip11

I believe that every state should have constitutional carry. I think that of states have cpl laws that it shouldnt cost anything or very little (like 5 or ten dollars). it is unfair to charge someone for a constitutionally guaranteed right. If you have a poor man that cant afford the $105 that you must pay the state here in Michigan, should he be denied the right to self defense?

Also, how do anti-gun groups get off saying that the 2A doesnt apply to state and local governments. If you do that with one amendment then you have to do it with all of them. For instance, what if an anti-gun group had a demonstration in a very pro-gun state like Arizona. It was peaceful and they were handing out literature. Exercising their first amendment right to free speech. All of a sudden, the police come and break up the demonstration and arrest all of the group and charge them with a crime, that if convicted, would make them a felon.

Is this a troll? :confused:

What is a "cpl" law? It may be something that everyone in your state understands, but not out here. - - If the fee your refer to is for background check prior to issuance of a concealed carry permit, the cost of that is more than 5 or 10 dollars. Do you expect your local government to subsidize concealed carry permits? If you want to say something like "the fee shall be only what it costs to do the check" I'll bet you get a lot more support.

Quote:

If you have a poor man that cant afford the $105 that you must pay the state here in Michigan, should he be denied the right to self defense?

Why does not having a concealed carry permit restrict someone's right to self defense? There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in your state that disagree with you (or THEY would already have concealed carry permits). The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Keep in mind that the 2A was written back when only those with nefarious intent concealed their weapons. Then, to "bear arms" was to openly carry (includes handguns in a holster or tucked into the belt). Concealed carry is a privilege, not a right. - - You are comparing apples and grapefruit.

Quote:

Also, how do anti-gun groups get off saying that the 2A doesnt apply to state and local governments. If you do that with one amendment then you have to do it with all of them. For instance, what if an anti-gun group had a demonstration in a very pro-gun state like Arizona. It was peaceful and they were handing out literature. Exercising their first amendment right to free speech. All of a sudden, the police come and break up the demonstration and arrest all of the group and charge them with a crime, that if convicted, would make them a felon.

Pray tell, what crime - could - they be charged with, under your scenario, that if convicted makes them a felon?
You did say "peaceful" and "handing out literature" didn't you? :D
Sounds like tin foil hat time to me.

For anyone that wants to see more gun laws like AK, AZ(VERY soon) and VT have, I fully support that. HOWEVER, you have to convince a whole lot more people of the viability of that premise before you will have any chance of it becoming a reality.

bkt

06-07-2010 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat-inCO
(Post 296225)

Is this a troll? :confused:

What is a "cpl" law? It may be something that everyone in your state understands, but not out here.

Concealed Pistol License. Other states have a Concealed Handgun License (CHL). Where I am in New York, it's a Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW). Was this really that hard to figure out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat-inCO
(Post 296225)

If the fee your refer to is for background check prior to issuance of a concealed carry permit, the cost of that is more than 5 or 10 dollars. Do you expect your local government to subsidize concealed carry permits?

No. I don't expect them to do background checks. Do you see anything about the government being required to do a check to determine whether or not someone's unalienable rights may be granted in 2A or any other part of the BoR? I don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat-inCO
(Post 296225)

If you want to say something like "the fee shall be only what it costs to do the check" I'll bet you get a lot more support.

If you say "let's start adhering to the law" you'd get even more support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat-inCO
(Post 296225)

Why does not having a concealed carry permit restrict someone's right to self defense?

In New York State, there is no open carry permitted. It's only concealed carry. Not having a CCW up here means I can't legally be armed with a handgun. I'd say that restricts my right to self-defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat-inCO
(Post 296225)

There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in your state that disagree with you (or THEY would already have concealed carry permits).

I don't give a damn about other people. I care about me and the law. Others may do as they please so long as they don't get between me and the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat-inCO
(Post 296225)

The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Keep in mind that the 2A was written back when only those with nefarious intent concealed their weapons. Then, to "bear arms" was to openly carry (includes handguns in a holster or tucked into the belt). Concealed carry is a privilege, not a right. - - You are comparing apples and grapefruit.

First, some states do not permit open carry. Second, I don't see any qualifiers to "bear arms" such as the words "concealed" or "open". So let's err on the side of caution, shall we, and assume it means what it says. I may bear arms. Maybe it's open carry, maybe it's concealed. How I do it is my business, not yours or the state's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat-inCO
(Post 296225)

Pray tell, what crime - could - they be charged with, under your scenario, that if convicted makes them a felon?
You did say "peaceful" and "handing out literature" didn't you? :D
Sounds like tin foil hat time to me.

Sounds like you don't understand the theory of incorporation to me. Go look it up.

If 1A were not incorporated against the states (the same way 2A is not today), then it would be legal for states to ban free speech or certain types of speech. It would be possible to arrest people for peaceably assembling, speaking their mind, and petitioning the government for a redress of their grievances. Sounds pretty nuts, doesn't it?

If a group of people gathered today in a New York State park openly carrying handguns, rifles and shotguns, they would be arrested.

Do you understand what the OP was trying to say?

Pat-inCO

06-08-2010 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkt

If a group of people gathered today in a New York State park openly carrying handguns, rifles and shotguns, they would be arrested.

OK . . . . . . What have Michigan people, demonstrating in AZ, to do with NY? :confused:

bkt

06-08-2010 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat-inCO
(Post 296447)

OK . . . . . . What have Michigan people, demonstrating in AZ, to do with NY? :confused:

Seriously?

In Michigan (and New York, but that's incidental to this thread) it costs a good deal of money to get a permit to carry a handgun.

The OP asked, in essence, how would people like it if the First Amendment had not been incorporated against the states and a group of anti-gun folks gathered in a pro-gun state (like Arizona) and protested but were arrested for speaking their minds. His implication was that in other states, carrying open (or concealed without a permit) will get you arrested. Yet both free speech and the right to bear arms are part of the Bill or Rights.

I merely chimed in that open carry in NYS would get you arrested.

Did this really need to be explained?

GoBlue

06-08-2010 03:10 AM

I'm kinda wondering what "constitutional carry" is. I heard a lot about it on NRA news podcast and such, but it's almost as if everyone just assumed everyone else knows what it is.